Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin April 2011 to March 2012, England and Wales

Ministry of Justice Statistics Bulletin

30 January 2014 Contents

Introduction ......................................................................................................3 Executive summary..........................................................................................7 Adult and juvenile offenders...........................................................................10 Gender ...........................................................................................................12 Age ................................................................................................................13 Disposal (sentence) type ...............................................................................14 Adult offenders discharged from prison or commencing a court order ......14 Adult offenders discharged from prison......................................................14 Juvenile offenders released from custody ..................................................15 Adult offenders commencing a court order.................................................15 Comparing the effectiveness of sentences ....................................................15 Adult offenders by individual prison ...............................................................17 Adult offenders by probation trust .................................................................17 Index offence .................................................................................................18 Previous offences ..........................................................................................19 List of quarterly tables....................................................................................20 Annex A Interim re-conviction figures for Peterborough and Doncaster Payment by Results pilots..............................................................................22 Annex B Glossary of terms ............................................................................32 Explanatory notes ..........................................................................................41 Contact points ...............................................................................................42 Introduction

The Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin provides key statistics on proven re-offending in England and Wales. It gives proven re-offending figures for adult and juvenile offenders, who were released from custody, received a non-custodial conviction at court, received a caution, reprimand or warning, or tested positive for opiates or cocaine between April 2011 and March 2012. A proven re-offence is defined as any offence committed in a one year follow-up period that leads to a court conviction, caution, reprimand or warning in the one year follow-up or within a further six month waiting period to allow the offence to be proven in court.

This quarterly bulletin presents the proportion of offenders who re-offend (proven re-offending rate) and the number of proven re-offences those offenders commit by age group, gender, criminal history and offence type. Also included are proven re-offending rates for serious proven re-offending, different types of sentence, and for individual prisons and probation trusts. Other breakdowns that were previously available in the quarterly bulletin, such as proven re-offending for local authorities, youth offending teams, drug-misusing offenders and prolific and other priority offenders, will be now available only for the calendar year based cohort (January to December) which is published in October. Further information on this change is available in Annex C of the Proven Re-offending Statistics Bulletin, January to December 2011, at the link below:

www.gov.uk/government/publications/proven-re-offending-quarterly-january-to-december-2011

Latest figures are provided with comparisons to April 2010 to March 2011 and the year 2000 in order to highlight long-term trends; 2000 is the earliest year for which proven re-offending data exist on a comparable basis. The full set of results is provided separately in Excel tables at:

www.gov.uk/government/collections/proven-reoffending-statistics

The accompanying ‘Definitions and Measurement’ document, which is available at the same link, provides more detailed information.

Users interested in the latest findings from the Peterborough and Doncaster Payment by Results pilots can find the latest interim re-conviction figures in Annex A. Measuring proven re-offending

There is no agreed international standard for measuring and reporting re-offending. An offender’s journey through the criminal justice system can be a complex one; offenders can appear on numerous occasions.

Measuring true re-offending is complex. Official records are taken from either the police or courts, but they will underestimate the true level of re-offending because only a proportion of crime is reported and/or detected and not all crimes are recorded on one central system. Furthermore, other methods for measuring re-offending, such as self-report studies, which do not identify the offender, are likely to be unreliable. Therefore, this report aims to estimate proven re-offending for a specified group of offenders using data mainly from the Police National Computer.

Since this report measures re-offending on a consistent basis across all groups, it is possible to tailor analysis of re-offending to meet specific requirements. This quarterly bulletin and the accompanying ‘Early estimates of proven re-offending’ present measures on four different levels to meet users’ needs:

- The headline measure – this is the overall measure of re-offending and is presented for different demographic groups and by offence. To provide this overview of proven re-offending, offenders are tracked and their proven re-offending behaviour is recorded, taking the first event in the relevant period as the start point and subsequent events as proven re-offences. Users should refer to tables 1 to 11 and 13 to 17 for the headline measure.

- A headline measure where the first event is related to criminal justice and offender management – this provides a realistic and relevant view of proven re-offending by disposal (sentence type), prison and probation trust. Offenders are tracked and their proven re-offending behaviour is recorded within each disposal (caution, court order, discharge from prison, etc.) or operational unit (prison or probation trust) taking the first event within each as the start point and subsequent events as re-offences. Users should refer to tables 12 and 18 to 25 for this headline measure.

- Early estimates of proven re-offending – these use shorter follow-up and waiting periods, but otherwise measure re-offending in exactly the same way as the headline measure. This provides an earlier indication of proven re-offending trends so offender managers can adjust or build on offender management operational policy. This table is published as management information for probation trusts alongside the accompanying proven re-offending tables.

______________________________________________________________________

1 An event is one of the following: a release from custody, convicted at court with a non-custodial sentence, received a caution, reprimand, warning or tested positive for opiates or cocaine.

2 Tables 4, 7, 9 to 17, 20, 21 and 25 are published annually in October. • A re-conviction measure for use by payment by results – this is the measure used in the prison pilots where court convictions are more closely associated with costs to the criminal justice system. For more details, please refer to Annex A.

For a more detailed explanation, please see the accompanying ‘Definitions and Measurement’ document at:

www.gov.uk/government/collections/proven-reoffending-statistics

Consultation

This quarterly bulletin was developed in response to a consultation in late 2010 and early 2011 by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) on “Improvements to Ministry of Justice Statistics”.

Users

The contents of this bulletin will be of interest to Government policy makers, the agencies responsible for offender management at both national and local levels, providers, practitioners and others who want to understand more about proven re-offending.

In particular there are two MoJ impact indicators which will be monitored using results from this bulletin:

• Adult and juvenile re-offending – the percentage of adult and juvenile offenders who re-offend.

• The percentage of adults released from custody who re-offend.

Government policy makers also use these statistics to develop, monitor and evaluate key elements of its policies including those on payments by results, legal aid, sentencing guidelines and drug and alcohol policies. Offender management agencies use these statistics to gain a local understanding of the criminal justice system, understand performance and to highlight best practice. Key agencies include: the National Offender Management Service, the Youth Justice Board, private and voluntary sector providers of prison and probation services and local authorities.

As proven re-offending is related to the characteristics of offenders, the actual rate of proven re-offending will depend, in part, on the characteristics of offenders coming into the system. This actual rate provides users with sufficient information on what the level of re-offending is (e.g. in their local area) and how it is changing over time. Some of the tables in this bulletin also present an adjusted proven re-offending rate to control for differences in the composition of the offender group which can be used by those who want to

3 www.gov.uk/government/publications?departments%5B%5D=ministry-of-justice understand how changes in types of offenders coming through the justice system drive re-offending rates.

This bulletin is published alongside four inter-related bulletins:

- **Offender Management Statistics Quarterly Bulletin, July to September 2013, England and Wales**: provides key statistics relating to offenders who are in prison or under Probation Service supervision. It covers flows into these services (receptions into prison or probation starts) and flows out (discharges from prison or probation terminations) as well as the caseload of both services at specific points in time. It also includes information on returns to custody following recall.

- **Safety in Custody Statistics Quarterly update to September 2013, England and Wales**: provides statistics on death, self harm and assault incidents whilst in prison custody.

- **Youth Justice Statistics 2012/13, England and Wales**: this cross-cutting publication brings together statistics from across the Youth Justice System, many of which have already been published separately.

- **Experimental statistics from the 2013 MoJ/DWP/HMRC data share**: Linking data on offenders from MoJ with benefit, employment and income data from DWP and HMRC.

Taken together, these publications present users with a more coherent overview of offender management, re-offending among adults and young people, the youth justice system and the safety of offenders whilst in prison custody.

Additional analyses on proven re-offending that are not covered by this bulletin are presented in the ‘Compendium of re-offending statistics and analysis’. The 2013 edition of this publication, which was published by the MoJ on 11 July 2013, includes a comprehensive analysis on the impact of sentencing on proven re-offending for adult offenders.

[www.gov.uk/government/publications/2013-compendium-of-re-offending-statistics-and-analysis](http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/2013-compendium-of-re-offending-statistics-and-analysis)

If you have any feedback, questions or requests for further information about this statistical bulletin, please direct them to the appropriate contact given at the end of this report. Executive summary

This report provides key statistics on proven re-offending in England and Wales. It gives proven re-offending figures for adult and juvenile offenders who were released from custody, received a non-custodial conviction at court, received a caution, reprimand or warning, or tested positive for opiates or cocaine between April 2011 and March 2012. A proven re-offence is defined as any offence committed in a one year follow-up period that leads to a court conviction, caution, reprimand or warning in the one year follow-up. Following this one year follow-up, a further six month waiting period is allowed for the offence to be proven in court.

Overall - adult and juvenile offenders Between April 2011 and March 2012, around 600,000 adult and juvenile offenders were cautioned, convicted (excluding immediate custodial sentences) or released from custody. Around 160,000 of these offenders committed a proven re-offence within a year. This gives an overall proven re-offending rate of 26.5%, representing a small drop of 0.3 percentage points compared to the previous 12 months and a slight fall of 1.4 percentage points since 2000. Since 2000, the overall proven re-offending rate for adult and juvenile offenders has remained fairly stable, fluctuating between around 26% and 29% (Table 1).

In total, around 460,000 proven re-offences were committed over the one year follow-up period, with those that re-offended committing, on average, 2.9 re-offences each (both adults and juveniles) (Table 1).

Unsurprisingly, offenders with 11 or more previous offences have a higher re-offending rate than those with no previous offences – 47.5% compared to 10.8% in the most recent figures and the same pattern can be seen for previous years (Table 6c).

Serious re-offences: less than 1% of all proven re-offences committed over the one year follow-up period were serious violent or sexual offences with very little change since 2000 (Table 8).

______________________________________________________________________

4 A certain proportion of offenders who could not be matched to the Police National Computer (PNC) are excluded from the offender cohort. Therefore, this number does not represent all proven offenders. Please refer to the ‘Definitions and Measurement’ document for more detail at www.gov.uk/government/collections/proven-reoffending-statistics. This means that the number of offenders in this bulletin will be different from the numbers published in the Offender Management Quarterly Statistics Bulletin available at www.gov.uk/government/collections/offender-management-statistics-quarterly and the Criminal Justice Statistics report available at www.gov.uk/government/collections/criminal-justice-statistics-quarterly.

5 Includes reprimands and warnings for juveniles.

6 Also includes those who tested positive for opiates or cocaine. Adult offenders Around 530,000 adult offenders were cautioned, convicted or released from custody between April 2011 and March 2012 and around 130,000 of them committed a re-offence. This gives a proven re-offending rate of 25.3%. Compared to the previous 12 months, the rate has not changed, but, since 2000, it has seen a slight fall of 0.9 percentage points. Proven re-offending rates for adult offenders have remained fairly flat since 2000 fluctuating between around 25% and 28% (Table 1).

Adult offenders released from custody The proven re-offending rate for adult offenders released from custody between April 2011 and March 2012 was 45.8%, a fall of 1.5 percentage points compared to the previous 12 months and a fall of 3.6 percentage points since 2000. Adults who served sentences of less than 12 months, re-offended at a rate of 57.7% compared to 34.4% for those who served sentences of 12 months or more. Since 2005, the overall rate for those released from custody has remained relatively stable at around 46% to 49%. The trends for those released from short and long sentences have both also remained broadly flat since 2005 and are consistent with the overall trend. The rate for those released from short sentences has been consistently higher compared to those released from longer sentences (Table 19a).

Adult offenders starting a court order The proven re-offending rate for adult offenders starting a court order (Community Order or Suspended Sentence Order) was 34.0%, a small drop of 0.2 percentage points compared to the previous 12 months and down 3.9 percentage points since 2000 (Table 18a).

Juvenile offenders Around 71,000 juvenile offenders were cautioned, convicted or released from custody between April 2011 and March 2012 and around 25,000 of them committed a re-offence. This gives a proven re-offending rate of 35.5%, down 0.3 percentage points from the previous 12 months. While the rate has seen an overall increase of 1.8 percentage points since 2000, the cohort has changed considerably over this time; it has almost halved in size due to a substantial decrease in the number of first time entrants to the criminal justice system and, as such, is comprised of offenders whose characteristics mean that they are more likely to re-offend than those in the 2000 cohort. A first time entrant is an offender who has received their first reprimand, warning, caution or conviction for an offence (Table 1).

Juvenile offenders released from custody The proven re-offending rate for juvenile offenders released from custody between April 2011 and March 2012 was 69.3%. This represents a fall of 3.3 percentage points compared to the previous 12 months and a fall of 7.5 percentage points since 2000 (Table 19b).

______________________________________________________________________

1 Excludes indeterminate sentences for public protection and life sentence prisoners. Table E1: Overview – latest 12 month period compared to the previous 12 month period and 2000

| | 2000 | 12 months ending March 2011 | 12 months ending March 2012 | Percentage change 2000 to 12 months ending March 2012 | Percentage change 12 months ending March 2011 to 12 months ending March 2012 | |----------------------|-------|----------------------------|----------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------| | **All offenders** | | | | | | | Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%) | 27.9 | 26.8 | 26.5 | -1.4pp ↓ | -0.2pp ↓ | | Average number of re-offences per re-offender | 3.37 | 2.88 | 2.90 | -13.9% ↓ | 0.8% ↑ | | Proportion of offenders who re-offend - Adjusted to baseline (%) | 25.5 | 27.1 | 27.4 | -28.1% ↓ | -0.2% ↓ | | Average number of re-offences per offender | 0.94 | 0.77 | 0.77 | -30.1% ↓ | -6.5% ↓ | | Number of re-offences | 579,775 | 495,162 | 485,083 | -20.1% ↓ | -6.5% ↓ | | Number of re-offenders | 171,935 | 171,949 | 159,528 | -7.2% ↓ | -7.2% ↓ | | Number of offenders in cohort | 611,024 | 641,742 | 605,624 | -3.4% ↓ | -6.2% ↓ | | **Adult offenders** | | | | | | | Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%) | 26.2 | 25.4 | 25.3 | -0.9pp ↓ | 0.0pp ↔ | | Average number of re-offences per re-offender | 3.39 | 2.88 | 2.91 | -14.3% ↓ | 0.9% ↑ | | Proportion of offenders who re-offend - Adjusted to baseline (%) | 23.6 | 25.9 | 26.3 | -27.1% ↓ | -0.7% ↑ | | Average number of re-offences per offender | 0.86 | 0.73 | 0.74 | -27.1% ↓ | -0.7% ↑ | | Number of re-offences | 423,992 | 404,228 | 390,946 | -7.9% ↓ | -3.3% ↓ | | Number of re-offenders | 125,023 | 140,314 | 134,519 | -7.6% ↓ | -4.1% ↓ | | Number of offenders in cohort | 477,698 | 553,385 | 531,420 | 22.2% ↑ | -4.0% ↓ | | **Juvenile offenders** | | | | | | | Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%) | 33.7 | 35.8 | 35.5 | 1.8pp ↑ | -0.3pp ↓ | | Average number of re-offences per re-offender | 3.32 | 2.87 | 2.88 | -13.1% ↓ | 0.4% ↑ | | Proportion of offenders who re-offend - Adjusted to baseline (%) | 32.0 | 36.2 | 36.5 | -8.5% ↓ | -0.6% ↓ | | Average number of re-offences per offender | 1.12 | 1.03 | 1.02 | -8.5% ↓ | -0.6% ↓ | | Number of re-offences | 155,781 | 90,934 | 72,147 | -53.7% ↓ | -20.7% ↓ | | Number of re-offenders | 46,912 | 31,635 | 25,009 | -46.7% ↓ | -20.9% ↓ | | Number of offenders in cohort | 129,326 | 86,567 | 77,144 | -48.4% ↓ | -20.2% ↓ |

1. pp = percentage point and percentage changes may not add up due to rounding of raw figures
2. See the definitions and measurement paper for an explanation on how to use and interpret the baseline rate Overall - adult and juvenile offenders (Table 1)

Adult offenders accounted for 88% (around 530,000) of the April 2011 to March 2012 offender cohort, and juvenile offenders, 12% (around 71,000).

Around 130,000 of all adult offenders were proven to have committed a re-offence within a year. This gives a proven re-offending rate of 25.3% which represents no change compared to the previous 12 months. Since 2000, there has been little change in this rate, as illustrated in Figure 1. Over this time it has ranged from 25% to 28%.

The proven re-offending rate for juvenile offenders is higher, but in the last 12 months it has decreased slightly from 35.8% in the 12 months ending March 2011 to 35.5% in the 12 months ending March 2012, a drop mainly driven by a decrease in the rate for 15 to 17 year olds. Since 2000, the rate has remained fairly flat at around 32% to 36%.

While the rate has seen an increase since 2000, the total number of juvenile offenders in the cohort has fallen by 49%. This is in line with the pattern of first time entrants to the criminal justice system where the number of young people receiving their first reprimand, warning or conviction has also decreased thus leaving behind a more prolific group of offenders who are more likely to re-offend. More information on first time entrants for both adults and juveniles can be found in the ‘Criminal Justice Statistics Quarterly Bulletin’ at:

www.gov.uk/government/collections/criminal-justice-statistics-quarterly Figure 1: Proportion of adult and juvenile offenders in England and Wales who commit a proven re-offence, 2000, 2002 to 12 months ending March 2012\\textsuperscript{1,2}

1. Data are not available for 2001 due to a problem with archived data on Court Orders
2. For 2006 to 2012, data are for the 12 months ending March Gender (Table 2)

In the April 2011 to March 2012 cohort, 81% were male and 19% were female – a gender split that has changed little over the years since 2000. Male offenders from the April 2011 to March 2012 cohort, re-offended at a higher rate of 28.3% compared to female offenders who re-offended at a rate of 18.7%, and, as shown in Figure 2, both rates have remained broadly stable since 2000. Between 2000 and the 12 months ending March 2012, the proven re-offending rate for male offenders decreased by 1.2 percentage points, and, over the same period, the rate for female offenders saw a slightly larger decrease of 1.7 percentage points.

Figure 2: Proportion of adult and juvenile offenders in England and Wales who commit a proven re-offence, by gender, 2000, 2002 to 12 months ending March 2012

1. Data are not available for 2001 due to a problem with archived data on Court Orders
2. For 2006 to 2012, data are for the 12 months ending March Age (Table 3)

Since 2000, the proven re-offending rate for offenders aged 15 to 17 has been consistently higher than the rates for offenders in other age groups. In the 12 months ending March 2012, the rate for offenders in this age group decreased for the first time in four years – it fell from 36.7% (the highest level since 2000) in the previous 12 months to 35.8%. At 34.5%, rates for 10 to 14 year olds from the April 2011 to March 2012 cohort are the second highest and, along with the rates for those aged 35 and over, have reached their highest levels since 2000.

Compared to 2000, the proven re-offending rate for offenders in the cohort for April 2011 to March 2012 rose for 10 to 14 year olds and for those aged 30 and over, but fell for offenders aged 15 to 29.

Figure 3 shows that the proven re-offending rate for those aged 18 and over generally falls with increasing age.

Figure 3: Proportion of adult and juvenile offenders in England and Wales who commit a proven re-offence, by age, 2000, 2010 and 12 months ending March 2012

1. For 2011 and 2012, data are for the 12 months ending March Disposal (sentence) type

Adult offenders discharged from prison or commencing a court order (Table 18a)

Between April 2011 and March 2012, around 190,000 adult offenders were discharged from prison or commenced a court order. Around 67,000 of these offenders were proven to have committed a re-offence within a year. This gives a proven re-offending rate of 35.6%.

Since 2005, the rate has remained fairly flat at around 36% to 38%.

Adult offenders discharged from prison (Table 19a)

Between April 2011 and March 2012, around 60,000 adult offenders were discharged from prison and around 28,000 of these (45.8%) were proven to have committed a re-offence within a year. While the rate has decreased by 3.6 percentage points since 2000, it has remained fairly stable since 2005.

Around half of the adult offenders discharged from prison between April 2011 and March 2012 were released from a custodial sentence of less than 12 months. These offenders had a proven re-offending rate of 57.7% compared to 34.4% for those who served sentences of 12 months or more.

Since 2005, the overall rate for those released from custody has remained broadly stable and the rate for those released from short sentences has been consistently higher compared to those released from long sentences, as shown in Figure 4. Figure 4: Proportion of adult offenders discharged from prison who commit a proven re-offence, by custodial sentence length, 2000, 2002 to 12 months ending March 2012\\textsuperscript{1,2}

Juvenile offenders released from custody (Table 19b)

Between April 2011 and March 2012, around 2,000 juvenile offenders were released from custody and around 1,400 of these (69.3%) were proven to have committed a re-offence within a year. This represents a fall of 3.3 percentage points compared to the previous 12 months and fall of 7.5 percentage points since 2000.

Adult offenders commencing a court order (Table 18a)

Between April 2011 and March 2012, around 140,000 adult offenders started a court order and around 47,000 of these (34.0%) committed a proven re-offence within a year.

Comparing the effectiveness of sentences

Proven re-offending rates by index disposal (sentence type) should not be compared to assess the effectiveness of sentences, as there is no control for known differences in offender characteristics and the type of sentence given. The ‘2013 Compendium of Re-offending Statistics and Analysis’ compares like for like offenders which enables a more reliable comparison of proven re-offending rates between offenders receiving different sentences. The findings from the Compendium show that offenders sentenced to less than 12 months in custody had a higher proven re-offending rate than similar, matched offenders receiving:

- a community order - 6.4 percentage points for 2010;
- a suspended sentence order - 8.6 percentage points for 2010;
- a ‘court order’ (either a community order or a suspended order) - 6.8 percentage points for 2010.

Non-custodial sentences were also compared:

- Suspended sentence orders had a lower re-offending rate than community orders (3.2 percentage points for 2010);
- Community orders had a higher re-offending rate than fines, though the difference was small (0.9 percentage points in 2010);
- Conditional discharges had a lower re-offending rate than: Community orders (5.1 percentage points for 2010); and Fines (5.5 percentage points for 2010).

www.gov.uk/government/publications/2013-compendium-of-re-offending-statistics-and-analysis Adult offenders by individual prison (Tables 22a and b)

Among prisons which discharged 30 or more offenders between April 2011 and March 2012, proven re-offending rates varied considerably from 12.1% to 80.0% for offenders with a sentence of less than 12 months and from 3.4% to 64.9% for offenders with a sentence of 12 months or more. A large part of this variability reflects the mix of offenders who are held in different prisons and, therefore, comparisons between prisons should not be made using these raw re-offending rates.

To account for this variability in the mix of prisoners, a model has been developed to help explain if re-offending rates are affected by the specific prison they are discharged from or if the rate of re-offending reflects the mix of offenders. For example, a group of prisoners with a high number of previous offences is more likely to re-offend than a group with a low number of previous offences.

Less than 12 month sentences Among prisons discharging offenders serving sentences of less than 12 months, four prisons (Ford, Leyhill, Standford Hill and Usk/Prescoed) had significantly lower proven re-offending rates than expected and two (Hindley and Wetherby) had significantly higher.

12 month or more sentences Among prisons discharging offenders serving sentences of 12 months or more, four prisons had significantly lower proven re-offending rates (Canterbury, East Sutton Park, Grendon/Spring Hill and Latchmere House) than expected and none had significantly higher.

Adult offenders by probation trust (Table 24)

Offenders given a court order are managed by the Probation Service which comprises 35 probation trusts. Proven re-offending rates for these offenders are presented by probation trust in Table 24. This takes the first court order commencement from within each probation trust as the start point for measuring re-offending and subsequent events as proven re-offences.

Proven re-offending rates varied considerably between probation trusts from 26.7% to 43.1%. A large part of this variability reflects the mix of offenders who are given a court order and, therefore, comparisons between probation trusts should not be made using these raw re-offending rates.

For probation trusts an adjusted proven re-offending rate to control for differences in the composition of the offender group in each trust has been developed from the national model. Seven probation trusts showed significantly lower proven re-offending rates than expected. These were Gloucestershire, Hampshire, London, Northamptonshire, South Yorkshire, Staffordshire and West Midlands and York and North Yorkshire. None showed significantly higher proven re-offending rates than expected.

**Index offence (Table 5c)**

The offence that leads to an offender being included in the offender cohort is called the index offence. In the April 2011 to March 2012 cohort, offenders with an index offence of ‘Theft’ had the highest proven re-offending rate of 40.0%. This was closely followed by those with an index offence of ‘Robbery’ with a rate of 37.5%. Those with the lowest rate (excluding the ‘Other’ category) had an index offence of ‘Fraud’ and re-offended at a rate of 11.4%. Additionally, with a fall of 10.3 percentage points, the ‘Fraud’ index offence category saw the largest decrease between 2000 and the 12 months ending March 2012. In contrast, the largest increase over the same period occurred for those with an index offence of ‘Public Order’.

**Figure 5: Proportion of adult and juvenile offenders in England and Wales who commit a proven re-offence, by index offence, 12 months ending March 2012** Previous offences (Table 6a, b and c)

Generally, offenders with a large number of previous offences have a higher rate of proven re-offending and this is true for both adults and juveniles. In the April 2011 to March 2012 cohort, the proven re-offending rates ranged from 10.8% for offenders with no previous offences to 47.5% for offenders with 11 or more previous offences. Between 2000 and the 12 months ending March 2012, the largest decrease in the proven re-offending rate was among offenders with one or two previous offences.

Adult offenders with 11 or more previous offences represented just under a third of all adult offenders in the April 2011 to March 2012 cohort, but committed two thirds of all adult proven re-offences. Juvenile offenders with 11 or more previous offences had a proven re-offending rate of 76.1%. This group make up only 6% of all juvenile offenders, but committed a fifth (20%) of all juvenile proven re-offences.

Figure 6: Proportion of adult and juvenile offenders in England and Wales who commit a proven re-offence, by previous offence band, 12 months ending March 2012 List of quarterly tables

Proven re-offending – overview

Table 1 Summary proven re-offending data, by adults and juveniles 2000, 2002 to March 2012 Table 2 Proven re-offending data, by gender, 2000, 2002 to March 2012 Table 3 Proven re-offending data, by age, 2000, 2002 to March 2012

-----------------------Table 4 is published annually in October-----------------------

Table 5a Adult proven re-offending data, by index offence (based on new ONS crime classifications), 2000, 2002 to March 2012 Table 5b Juvenile proven re-offending data, by index offence (based on new ONS crime classifications), 2000, 2002 to March 2012 Table 5c Adult and juvenile proven re-offending data, by index offence (based on new ONS crime classifications), 2000, 2002 to March 2012

Table 6a Adult proven re-offending data, by number of previous offences, 2000, 2002 to March 2012 Table 6b Juvenile proven re-offending data, by number of previous offences, 2000, 2002 to March 2012 Table 6c Adult and juvenile proven re-offending data, by number of previous offences, 2000, 2002 to March 2012

-----------------------Table 7 is published annually in October-----------------------

Table 8 Serious proven re-offending data, 2000, 2002 to March 2012

-----------------Tables 9 to17 are published annually in October-----------------

Proven re-offending by index disposal, probation trust and prison

Table 18a Adult proven re-offending data, by index disposal, 2000, 2002 to March 2012 Table 18b Juvenile proven re-offending data, by index disposal, 2000, 2002 to March 2012 Table 19a Adult proven re-offending data, by custodial sentence length, 2000, 2002 to March 2012 Table 19b Juvenile proven re-offending data, by custodial sentence length, 2000, 2002 to March 2012

---------------Tables 20 and 21 are published annually in October---------------

Table 22a Proven re-offending of adult offenders given sentences of less than 12 months, by individual prison, based on first discharge from each prison, 2007 to March 2012

Table 22b Proven re-offending of adult offenders given sentences of 12 months or more, by individual prison, based on first discharge from each prison, 2007 to March 2012

Table 23 Juvenile proven re-offending data, by individual prison or secure accommodation, based on first discharge from each prison or secure accommodation, 2007 to March 2012

Table 24 Adult proven re-offending data by probation trust based on first commencement from each trust, 2005 to March 2012

---------------Table 25 is published annually in October--------------- Annex A

Interim re-conviction figures for Peterborough and Doncaster Payment by Results pilots

Background

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) published “Breaking the Cycle: Effective Punishment, Rehabilitation and Sentencing of Offenders” in December 2010. This Green Paper included a commitment for the MoJ to commission a series of initial ‘payment by results’ (PbR) pilot projects to test the principle that PbR can result in service improvements by delivering better outcomes for the public at the same or less cost.

The MoJ currently has two prison based PbR pilots operating in HMP Peterborough and HMP Doncaster. The Peterborough pilot began on 9 September 2010 and the Doncaster pilot on 1 October 2011.

There are a number of differences in the design of the two pilots to enable different PbR approaches to be tested. These differences (as set out below in the methodology section and also in Table A1 of the Appendix) mean that the interim figures for the two pilots cannot be directly compared.

The final results for both pilots will be based on a 12 month re-conviction measure which counts offences committed in the 12 months following release from prison, and resulting in conviction at court either in those 12 months or in a further 6 month period (allowing time for cases to progress through the courts). As a consequence of this necessary time lag, final results will not be available until summer 2014 (for cohort 8 of both pilots, with final results for subsequent cohorts to follow in later years).

However, given the high level of public interest in relation to the reforms set out in the MoJ publication “Transforming Rehabilitation – a strategy for reform”, the MoJ began publishing interim re-conviction figures for both of these pilots from June 2013. This was the earliest opportunity after MoJ statisticians judged the number of offenders being reported on to be large enough to provide robust interim figures.

These figures are updated in this dedicated annex to each edition of the MoJ’s quarterly Proven Re-offending Statistics bulletin.

______________________________________________________________________

8 A cohort is the group of offenders included in the pilot, and for whom the reduction in re-convictions will be measured. See Table A1 in the Appendix for more details on which offenders are included in the cohorts. Methodology

Offenders enter the PbR pilots after their first eligible release from the prison within the cohort period. For Peterborough, cohort 1 closed at the end of the month in which the 1000th eligible offender was released. For the purposes of this statistical bulletin, cohort 1 is all eligible offenders released between 9 September 2010 and 1 July 2012. For Doncaster, cohort 1 includes all eligible offenders released from 1 October 2011 to 30 September 2012.

Both PbR prison pilots use a 12 month re-conviction measure which differs from the National Statistics proven re-offending measure. The key difference is that re-convictions only count offences for which the offender was convicted at court, whereas the National Statistics proven re-offending measure also includes out of court disposals (cautions). However, the time periods used for both measures are the same – offences committed within 12 months of release from prison and convicted at court (or cautioned for the proven re-offending measure) either in those 12 months, or in a further 6 month period (allowing time for cases to progress through the courts).

There are a number of differences in the design of the two pilots to enable different PbR approaches to be tested. The Peterborough pilot includes offenders released from custodial sentences of less than 12 months, whereas the Doncaster pilot includes all offenders released from custody regardless of sentence length. Although both pilots will be assessed using a 12 month re-conviction measure, the exact measures used are different in the two pilots (see the next section, Final re-conviction measures, for more details).

Additionally, there are a number of other differences between the pilots and the National Statistics proven re-offending measure in terms of which offenders are counted within the cohort. These differences were set out in the PbR contracts; see Table A1 in the Appendix for more details.

Final (outcome) re-conviction measures for the prison pilots

For Peterborough prison the outcome measure is the frequency of re-conviction events9 (based on offences committed within 12 months of release from prison and convicted at court within those 12 months or a further 6 month period). This is often referred to as a frequency measure. Success of each Peterborough cohort will be determined by comparison with a control group (of comparable offenders from across the country), and the results will be published separately.

For Doncaster prison the outcome measure is the proportion of offenders who commit one or more offences in the 12 months following release from prison and are convicted at court in those 12 months or in a further 6 months.

9 If an offender is re-convicted of multiple offences on one sentencing occasion, this counts as one re-conviction event. This is often referred to as a binary measure. Success will be determined by comparison with the re-conviction rate in the baseline year of 2009.

**Interim re-conviction measures for the prison pilots**

In publishing these interim figures MoJ aims to give the most useful figures for as much of each cohort as possible at each point in time.

Initially, this is done by providing figures based on periods half the length of those that will be used for the final results, for an increasing proportion of each cohort. These cover offences committed in the 6 months following release from prison, and resulting in conviction at court either in those 6 months or in a further 3 month period (allowing time for cases to progress through the courts).

Subsequently, when the data become available, we provide figures based on the full period used for the final results: covering offences committed in the 12 months following release from prison, and resulting in conviction at court either in those 12 months or in a further 6 month period, again for an increasing proportion of the cohort.

These figures are updated on a quarterly basis. See Table A3 in the Appendix for a timeline of the publication of these results.

The figures for Peterborough in this bulletin are 12 month re-conviction figures. They cover offenders released in the first 19 months of the cohort 1 period (the full cohort comprises 22 months).

For Doncaster, the figures presented here show 12 month re-conviction rates for the first time. They cover offenders released in the first 6 months of the cohort 1 period (the full cohort comprises 12 months).

**Interpreting interim re-conviction figures**

The interim re-conviction figures presented in this statistical bulletin give an indication of progress in the pilots to date. However, care should be taken when interpreting these interim figures for the following reasons:

- Figures for both pilots are based on incomplete cohorts;
- For the Peterborough pilot, success will be determined based on comparison with a control group of comparable offenders from across the country, which is not available for these interim results;

Users should therefore be aware that the figures presented provide our best assessment of change at this point in time. The final results will be available in summer 2014. Results

Peterborough

The interim figures presented in this statistical bulletin are 12 month re-conviction figures for offenders released from Peterborough in the first 19 months of the cohort 1 period (the full cohort comprises 22 months). For comparison, we have provided equivalent figures for the five years prior to the pilots.10

Success of the Peterborough pilot will be measured against a control group of similar offenders released from other prisons, with the target met if the frequency of re-conviction events is 10% lower for the Peterborough cohort than for the control group. It is not possible to replicate that comparison for these interim figures. Instead, in order to provide some context for the Peterborough figures, we have provided equivalent national figures for the same periods. The national figures are based on other local11 prisons which exclude Peterborough and Doncaster.

______________________________________________________________________

10 Figures for Sep09-Jun11 overlap with the pilot cohort 1 period itself; therefore they should not be used as a baseline for comparison. They have been included in the published figures for transparency. 11 Since HMP Peterborough is a local prison, the underlying characteristics of the prison and its offenders will be more similar to those of local prisons. See Annex D for a definition of local prison. Table 1 and Figure 1: Peterborough (and national equivalent) interim re-conviction figures using a partial (19 month) cohort and a 12 month re-conviction period

| Discharge Period | No. of offenders | Re-conviction Rate | Frequency of re-conviction events per 100 offenders | No. of offenders | Re-conviction Rate | Frequency of re-conviction events per 100 offenders | |------------------|------------------|--------------------|---------------------------------------------------|------------------|--------------------|---------------------------------------------------| | Sep05-Mar07 | 724 | 56.2% | 143 | 29,358 | 56.5% | 137 | | Sep06-Mar08 | 868 | 56.6% | 154 | 29,373 | 57.0% | 142 | | Sep07-Mar09 | 1,030 | 55.9% | 153 | 32,329 | 56.9% | 146 | | Sep08-Mar10 | 980 | 54.8% | 163 | 32,756 | 55.3% | 146 | | Sep09-Mar11 | 845 | 52.9% | 151 | 30,525 | 55.8% | 155 | | Sep10-Mar12 | 844 | 53.1% | 148 | 29,798 | 55.7% | 160 |

Table 1 above shows that for offenders released from Peterborough between 9 September 2010 and 31 March 2012 (the first 19 months of cohort 1), there were an average of 148 re-conviction events per 100 offenders. This compares to an average of 163 re-conviction events per 100 offenders released from Peterborough between September 2008 and March 2010; a fall of 9%.

Nationally, the equivalent figures show a rise of 10% from 146 to 160 re-conviction events per 100 offenders.

These interim figures show a fall in the frequency of re-conviction events at Peterborough while nationally there has been a substantial rise which is our best assessment of change at this point in time (see the section Interpreting interim re-conviction figures). The final results will be available in summer 2014. Doncaster

The interim figures presented in this statistical bulletin are 12 month re-conviction figures for offenders released from Doncaster in the first 6 months of the cohort 1 period (the full cohort comprises 12 months). For comparison, we have provided equivalent figures for the five years prior to the pilot and equivalent national figures for the same periods. The national figures are based on other local\\textsuperscript{12} prisons which exclude Peterborough and Doncaster.

Success of the Doncaster pilot will be measured against a baseline of calendar year 2009, with the target met if the re-conviction rate for cohort 1 is 5 percentage points lower than it was in 2009.

Table 2 and Figure 2: Doncaster (and national equivalent) interim 12-month re-conviction figures for offenders released in the first 6 months of the cohort 1 period

| Discharge Period | Doncaster | National | |------------------|-----------|----------| | | No. of offenders | Re-conviction Rate | No. of offenders | Re-conviction Rate | | Oct06-Mar07 | 739 | 59.7% | 12,585 | 56.9% | | Oct07-Mar08 | 636 | 63.7% | 13,868 | 58.0% | | Oct08-Mar09 | 669 | 60.1% | 14,324 | 57.0% | | Oct09-Mar10 | 718 | 57.7% | 14,184 | 55.6% | | Oct10-Mar11 | 675 | 53.8% | 13,712 | 56.1% | | Oct11-Mar12 | 719 | 53.8% | 13,903 | 54.1% |

\\textsuperscript{12} Since HMP Doncaster is a local prison, the underlying characteristics of the prison and its offenders will be more similar to those of local prisons. See Annex D for a definition of local prison. Table 2 above shows a 12 month re-conviction rate of 53.8% for offenders released from Doncaster between October 2011 and March 2012 (the first 6 months of cohort 1).

This compares to 60.1% for offenders released between October 2008 and March 2009 (a fall of 6.3 percentage points), and 57.7% for those released between October 2009 and March 2010 (a fall of 3.8 percentage points). We have compared to these figures as they are the closest comparable periods to the baseline period of calendar year 2009.

Nationally the equivalent figures show a re-conviction rate of 54.1% for offenders released between October 2011 and March 2012. This represents a fall of 2.9 percentage points compared with offenders released between October 2008 and March 2009 (57.0%) and a fall of 1.5 percentage points compared with those released from October 2009 to March 2010 (55.6%).

These interim figures show our best assessment of change at this point in time (see the section Interpreting interim re-conviction figures). The final results will be available in summer 2014.

## Appendix

### Table A1: Comparison of PbR re-conviction and National Statistics proven re-offending measures

| National Statistics measure of proven re-offending (for any prison) | PbR prison pilot re-conviction measures | Doncaster (cohort 1) | |---|---|---| | **The cohort** | Male offenders aged 18 or over discharged from Peterborough prison between 9 September 2010 and 1 July 2012 after serving sentences of less than 12 months. Differences from National Statistics:

- Excludes those who serve the whole of their custodial sentence on remand
- Excludes foreign national offenders recorded as having been deported on release from prison
- Includes those in prison for breach | Male offenders aged 18 or over discharged from Doncaster prison between 1 October 2011 and 30 September 2012 regardless of sentence length. Differences from National Statistics:
- Excludes those who serve the whole of their custodial sentence on remand
- Excludes foreign national offenders recorded as having been deported on release from prison | | **The period to measure re-convictions/re-offending** | 12 months for offences to occur and a further 6 months for offences to be proven (through conviction at court or a caution) | 12 months for offences to occur and a further 6 months for offences to be re-convicted\
  Note: excludes cautions | | **The headline measure** | Frequency of re-conviction events | Proportion of offenders re-convicted of one or more offences | | **What counts** | Offences committed in the 12 months following release from prison, and proven by conviction at court or a caution either in those 12 months or in a further 6 months | Any re-conviction event (sentencing occasion) relating to offences committed in the 12 months following release from prison, and resulting in conviction at court either in those 12 months or in a further 6 months\
  Note: excludes cautions |

Note: excludes cautions OGRS score data

Re-offending is related to the characteristics of offenders, for example offenders with a large number of previous convictions are more likely to re-offend than those with fewer previous convictions, and changes in re-conviction rates over time can be related to changes in the mix of offenders being worked with rather than a real change in the level of their re-offending.

The Offender Group Reconviction Scale (OGRS)(^{13}) is a predictor of re-offending based on age, gender and criminal history, which are risk factors known to be associated with the likelihood of re-offending. OGRS scores range from 0 to 1, with a lower score representing a lower likelihood of re-offending. The scores can be used to compare the relative likelihood of re-offending either over time or between different groups of offenders, with a higher/lower rate meaning a group of offenders who are more/less likely to re-offend. For example if Offender Group A have an average OGRS score of 0.44, and Offender Group B have an average OGRS score of 0.58, this means that Offender Group A are less likely to re-offend.

Tables A2a and A2b show the average OGRS scores for each of the offender groups that are measured in the tables above. These include offenders released from Peterborough and Doncaster prisons as well as those for the equivalent national groups of offenders. The figures are approximate because a small minority of offenders from each group are not included due to some data being unavailable.

Table A2a: Peterborough (and national equivalent) OGRS scores for offenders released in the first 19 months of the cohort 1 period

| Discharge Period | Average OGRS score | |------------------|--------------------| | | Peterborough | National | | Sep05-Mar07 | 0.50 | 0.53 | | Sep06-Mar08 | 0.50 | 0.53 | | Sep07-Mar09 | 0.50 | 0.52 | | Sep08-Mar10 | 0.50 | 0.52 | | Sep09-Mar11 | 0.48 | 0.52 | | Sep10-Mar12 | 0.49 | 0.52 |

(^{13}) For more details on OGRS see Ministry of Justice Research Summary 7/09 OGRS 3: the revised Offender Group Reconviction Scale at: webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110201125714/http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/offender-assessment-system.htm Table A2b: Doncaster (and national equivalent) OGRS scores for offenders released in the first 6 months of the cohort 1 period

| Discharge Period | Doncaster | National | |------------------|-----------|----------| | Oct06-Mar07 | 0.56 | 0.54 | | Oct07-Mar08 | 0.59 | 0.53 | | Oct08-Mar09 | 0.58 | 0.53 | | Oct09-Mar10 | 0.56 | 0.52 | | Oct10-Mar11 | 0.57 | 0.52 | | Oct11-Mar12 | 0.54 | 0.52 |

Table A3: Timeline for publication of interim re-conviction figures

| | April 2014 | |------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Peterborough | 12 month re-conviction figures for entire cohort 1 (a 22 month cohort) | | Doncaster | 12 month re-conviction figures for 9 months of cohort 1 | | | 12 month re-conviction results for entire cohort 1 (a 12 month cohort) |

Table A4: Other information on the pilots

| Prison / Area | Start date of pilot | Length of pilot | Number of eligible participants for Cohort 1 | Number of eligible participants to date for Cohort 2 | |------------------------------|---------------------|-----------------|---------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------| | Peterborough Social Impact Bond (SIB) | 9 September 2010 | Six years | 1,034<sup>14</sup> | 660<sup>15</sup> | | HMP Doncaster | 1 October 2011 | Four years | 1,472<sup>16</sup> | 1,230<sup>17</sup> |

<sup>14</sup> Eligible participants from Cohort 1 from 9 September 2010 to 1 July 2012. <sup>15</sup> Eligible participants from Cohort 2 from 2 July 2012 to 30 September 2013. <sup>16</sup> Eligible participants from Cohort 1 from 1 October 2011 to 30 September 2012. <sup>17</sup> Eligible participants from Cohort 2 from 1 October 2012 to 30 September 2013. This is the entire Doncaster pilot cohort 2 period, but the figure is provisional at this stage and subject to revision. Annex B

Glossary of terms

Re-offending terms

Cohort – this is the group of individuals whose re-offending is measured.

Index offence – the index offence is the proven offence that leads to an offender being included in the cohort.

Index disposal – the index disposal of the offender is the type of sentence the offender received for their index offence.

Start point (also known as the index date) – this is the set point in time from when re-offences are measured.

Follow-up period – this is the length of time proven re-offending is measured over.

Waiting period – this is the additional time beyond the follow-up period to allow for offences committed towards the end of the follow-up period to be proved by a court conviction, caution, reprimand or final warning.

Adjusted to baseline – proven re-offending is related to the characteristics of offenders which means that any overall rate of proven re-offending will depend, in part, on the characteristics of offenders coming into the system (just as the examination pass rate of a school will be related to the characteristics of its pupils). We use a modelling technique to produce a baseline figure adjusted to match the characteristics of the cohort we are comparing. Please refer to the ‘Definitions and Measurement’ document for more detail at: www.gov.uk/government/collections/proven-reoffending-statistics.

Re-conviction – where an offender is convicted at court for an offence committed within a set follow-up period and convicted within either the follow-up period or waiting period.

Proven re-offence – where an offender is convicted at court or receives some other form of criminal justice sanction for an offence committed within a set follow-up period and disposed of within either the follow-up period or waiting period.

Cohort used in the Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin – the proven re-offending cohort consists of all offenders discharged from custody, otherwise sanctioned at court, receiving a caution, reprimand or warning or tested positive for opiates or cocaine in each year. This cohort’s criminal history is collated and criminal behaviour is tracked over the following one year. Any offence committed in this one year period which is proven by a court conviction or out-of-court disposal (either in the one year period, or in a further six months waiting period) counts as a proven re-offence.

**Cohort used in the Local Adult Re-offending Quarterly Bulletin** – the local adult re-offending measure takes a snapshot of all offenders, aged 18 or over, who are under probation supervision at the end of a quarter, and combines four such snapshots together. This cohort’s criminal history is collated and criminal behaviour is tracked over the following three months. Any offence committed in this three month period which is proven by a court conviction or out-of-court disposal (either in the three month period, or in a further three months waiting period) counts as a proven re-offence. The latest available publication is the Local Adult Re-offending: 1 July 2012 – 30 June 2013, England and Wales; Ministry of Justice, November 2013.

[www.gov.uk/government/collections/local-adult-reoffending](http://www.gov.uk/government/collections/local-adult-reoffending)

**Disposal (sentence type)**

**Fine** – a financial penalty imposed following conviction.

**Court orders** – court orders include community sentences, community orders and suspended sentence orders supervised by the Probation Service. They do not include any pre or post release supervision.

**Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA03)** – for offences committed on or after 4 April 2005, the new community order replaced all existing community sentences for adults. The Act also introduced a new suspended sentence order for offences which pass the custody threshold. It also changed the release arrangements for prisoners. See Appendix A of Offender Management Caseload Statistics 2009 for more information.

**Community order** – for offences committed on or after 4 April 2005, the new community order introduced under the CJA 2003 replaced all existing community sentences for those aged 18 years and over. This term refers to all court orders except suspended sentence orders and deferred sentences which may have a custodial component to the sentence. The court must add at least one, but could potentially add all 12 requirements depending on the offences and the offender. The requirements are:

- unpaid work (formerly community service/community punishment) – a requirement to complete between 40 and 300 hours’ unpaid work;
- activity – for example, to attend basic skills classes;
- programme – there are several designed to reduce the prospects of re-offending; • prohibited activity – a requirement not do so something that is likely to lead to further offence or nuisance; • curfew – which is electronically monitored; • exclusion – this is not used frequently as there is no reliable electronic monitoring yet available; • residence – requirement to reside only where approved by probation officer; • mental health treatment (requires offender’s consent); • drug rehabilitation (requires offender’s consent); • alcohol treatment (requires offender’s consent); • supervision – meetings with probation officer to address needs/offending behaviour; and • attendance centre – between a minimum of 12 hours and a maximum of 36 in total which includes three hours of activity.

Typically, the more serious the offence and the more extensive the offender’s needs, the more requirements there will be. Most orders will comprise of one or two requirements, but there are packages of several requirements available where required. The court tailors the order as appropriate and is guided by the Probation Service through a pre-sentence report.

**Suspended sentence order (SSO)** – the CJA 2003 introduced a new suspended sentence order which is made up of the same requirements as a community order and, in the absence of breach is served wholly in the community supervised by the Probation Service. It consists of an ‘operational period’ (the time for which the custodial sentence is suspended) and a ‘supervision period’ (the time during which any requirements take effect). Both may be between six months and two years and the ‘supervision period’ cannot be longer than the ‘operational period’, although it may be shorter. Failure to comply with the requirements of the order or commission of another offence will almost certainly result in a custodial sentence.

**Pre CJA03 Court Orders – Community sentences**

**Community punishment order (CPO)** – the offender is required to undertake unpaid community work.

**Community rehabilitation order (CRO)** - a community sentence which may have additional requirements such as residence, probation centre attendance or treatment for drug, alcohol or mental health problems. Community punishment and rehabilitation order (CPR0) – a community sentence consisting of probation supervision alongside community punishment, with additional conditions like those of a community rehabilitation order.

Drug treatment and testing order (DTTO) – a community sentence targeted at offenders with drug-misuse problems.

Custody – the offender is awarded a sentence to be served in prison or a Young Offenders Institute (YOI). If the offender is given a sentence of 12 months or over, or is aged under 22 on release, the offender is supervised by the Probation Service on release. It is important to note that the sentence lengths and youth disposals awarded will be longer than the time served in custody. For more information please refer to Appendix A of Offender Management Caseload Statistics 2009.

Short sentences (under 12 months) – those sentenced to under 12 months (made under the Criminal Justice Act 1991) spend the first half of their sentence in prison and are then released and considered ‘at risk’ for the remaining period. This means they are under no positive obligations and do not report to the Probation Service, but if they commit a further imprisonable offence during the ‘at risk’ period, they can be made to serve the remainder of the sentence in addition to the punishment for the new offence. The exception to this is those aged 18 to 20 who have a minimum of three month’s supervision on release.

Sentences of 12 months or over – the CJA03 created a distinction between standard determinate sentences and public protection sentences. Offenders sentenced to a standard determinate sentence serve the first half in prison and the second half in the community on licence.

Youth disposal (sentence type)

Reprimand or warning – a reprimand is a formal verbal warning given by a police officer to a juvenile offender who admits they are guilty for a minor first offence. A final warning is similar to a reprimand, but can be used for either the first or second offence, and includes an assessment of the juvenile to determine the causes of their offending behaviour and a programme of activities is designed to address them.

First-tier penalties

Discharge – a juvenile offender is given an absolute discharge when they admit guilt, or are found guilty, with no further action taken. An offender given a conditional discharge also receives no immediate punishment, but is given a set period during which, if they commit a further offence, they can be brought back to court and re-sentenced. Fine – the size of the fine depends on the offence committed and the offender’s financial circumstances. In the case of juveniles under 16, the fine is the responsibility of the offender’s parent or carer.

Referral order – this is given to juveniles pleading guilty and for whom it is their first time at court (unless the offence is so serious it merits a custodial sentence or it is of a relatively minor nature). The offender is required to attend a Youth Offender Panel to agree a contract, aimed to repair the harm caused by the offence and address the causes of the offending behaviour.

Reparation order – the offender is required to repair the harm caused by their offence either directly to the victim or indirectly to the community.

Youth Rehabilitation Order – a community sentence for juvenile offenders, which came into effect on 30 November 2009 as part of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. It combines a number of sentences into one generic sentence and is the standard community sentence used for the majority of children and young people who offend. The following requirements can be attached to a Youth Rehabilitation Order (YRO):

- activity requirement
- curfew requirement
- exclusion requirement
- local authority residence requirement
- education requirement
- mental health treatment requirement
- unpaid work requirement
- drug testing requirement
- intoxicating substance misuse requirement
- supervision requirement
- electronic monitoring requirement
- prohibited activity requirement
- drug treatment requirement
- residence requirement • programme requirement • attendance centre requirement • intensive supervision and surveillance • intensive fostering

The following community sentences are replaced by the YRO, but will continue to exist for those that committed an offence before 30 November 2009. The YRO is only available for those that committed an offence on or after the 30 November 2009.

• action plan order • curfew order • supervision order • supervision order and conditions • community punishment order • community punishment and rehabilitation order • attendance centre order • drug treatment and testing order • exclusion order • community rehabilitation order

Prison categories

Category B and category C prisons hold sentenced prisoners of their respective categories, including life sentenced prisoners. The regime focuses on programmes that address offending behaviour and provide education, vocational training and purposeful work for prisoners who will normally spend several years in one prison.

High security prisons hold category A and B prisoners. Category A prisoners are managed by a process of dispersal, and these prisons also hold a proportion of category B prisoners for whom they provide a similar regime to a category B prison. The category B prisoners held in a High Security Prison are not necessarily any more dangerous or difficult to manage than those in category B prisons. Female prisons, as the name implies, hold female prisoners. Because of the smaller numbers, they are not divided into the same number of categories although there are variations in security levels.

Local prisons serve the courts in the area. Historically their main function was to hold un-convicted and un-sentenced prisoners and, once a prisoner had been sentenced, to allocate them on to a category B, C or D prison as appropriate to serve their sentence.

However, pressure on places means that many shorter term prisoners serve their entire sentence in a local prison, while longer term prisoners also complete some offending behaviour and training programmes there before moving on to lower security conditions. All local prisons operate to category B security standards.

Open prisons have much lower levels of physical security and only hold category D prisoners. Many prisoners in open prisons will be allowed to go out of the prison on a daily basis to take part in voluntary or paid work in the community in preparation for their approaching release.

Prisoner categories

These categories are based on a combination of the type of crime committed, the length of sentence, the likelihood of escape, and the danger to the public if they did escape. The four categories are:

Category A prisoners are those whose escape would be highly dangerous to the public or national security.

Category B prisoners are those who do not require maximum security, but for whom escape needs to be made very difficult.

Category C prisoners are those who cannot be trusted in open conditions, but who are unlikely to try to escape.

Category D prisoners are those who can be reasonably trusted not to try to escape and are given the privilege of an open prison.

Miscellaneous terms

Drug-misusing offenders

There are four ways a drug-misusing offender can be identified:

- Individuals who have tested positive for heroin or crack/cocaine following an arrest or charge for ‘trigger’ offences (largely acquisitive crime offences) as part of the Drug Interventions Programme (DIP) are included as adult proven offenders. • Any offender that received an OASys assessment whilst on licence or on a community sentence and are either recorded as being subject to a current Drug Treatment and Testing Order (DTTO) or Drug Rehabilitation Requirement (DRR), or are assessed as having a criminogenic drug need.

• Any offender identified as requiring further drug interventions by Counselling, Assessment, Referral, Advice, Throughcare (CARAT) teams in prison, and now being released into the community.

• Any offender identified by local Criminal Justice Integrated Teams (CJITs) as requiring further intervention for their drug use and offending as part of DIP.

**National Probation Service** – the National Probation Service generally deals with those aged 18 years and over. (Those under 18 are mostly dealt with by Youth Offending Teams, answering to the Youth Justice Board.) They are responsible for supervising offenders who are given community sentences and suspended sentence orders by the courts, as well as offenders given custodial sentences, both pre and post their release.

**Police National Computer** – the Police National Computer (PNC) is the police’s administrative IT system used by all police forces in England and Wales and managed by the National Policing Improvement Agency. As with any large scale recording system the PNC is subject to possible errors with data entry and processing. The MoJ maintains a database based on weekly extracts of selected data from the PNC in order to compile statistics and conduct research on re-offending and criminal histories. The PNC largely covers recordable offences – these are all indictable and triable-either-way offences plus many of the more serious summary offences. All figures derived from the MoJ’s PNC database, and in particular those for the most recent months, are likely to be revised as more information is recorded by the police.

**Prolific and other priority offenders** – the Prolific and other Priority Offenders Programme (PPO) aims to use a multi-agency approach to focus on a very small, but hard core group of prolific/persistent offenders who commit disproportionate amounts of crime and cause disproportionate harm to their local communities. The identification of a PPO is undertaken at a local level involving police, local authorities, prison and probation services and youth offending teams. The factors that influence the decision of whether an offender is included in the PPO programme are:

• the nature and volume of crimes they commit;

• the nature and volume of other harm they cause; and

• the detrimental impact they have on their community. Recordable offences – recordable offences are those that the police are required to record on the PNC. They include all offences for which a custodial sentence can be given plus a range of other offences defined as recordable in legislation. They exclude a range of less serious summary offences, for example television licence evasion, driving without insurance, speeding and vehicle tax offences.

Indictable and summary offences – summary offences are triable only by a magistrates’ court. This group includes motoring offences, common assault and criminal damage up to £5,000. More serious offences are classed either as triable-either-way (these can be tried either at the Crown Court or at a magistrates’ court and include criminal damage where the value is £5,000 or greater, theft and burglary) or indictable-only (the most serious offences that must be tried at the Crown Court; these ‘indictable-only’ offences include murder, manslaughter, rape and robbery). The term indictable offences is used to refer to all triable-either-way and ‘indictable-only’ offences.

Offence group (based on new ONS crime classifications) – offences classified into 13 separate offence categories using the new Office for National Statistics (ONS) crime classifications. For further information on the new classification, please refer to: www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/method-quality/specific/crime-statistics-methodology/presentational-changes-on-police-recorded-crime-in-england-and-wales.pdf. Explanatory notes

The United Kingdom Statistics Authority has designated these statistics as National Statistics, in accordance with the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 and signifying compliance with the Code of Practice for Official Statistics.

Designation can be broadly interpreted to mean that the statistics:

- meet identified user needs;
- are well explained and readily accessible;
- are produced according to sound methods; and
- are managed impartially and objectively in the public interest.

Once statistics have been designated as National Statistics it is a statutory requirement that the Code of Practice shall continue to be observed.

Symbols used

| Symbol | Description | |--------|--------------------------------------------------| | . | Not available | | 0 | Nil or less than half the final digit shown | | - | Not applicable | | * | One or both of the comparison figures are less than 30 | | (p) | Provisional data | Contact points

Press enquiries should be directed to the Ministry of Justice press office:

Tel: 020 3334 3536 Email: newsdesk@justice.gsi.gov.uk

Other enquiries about these statistics should be directed to:

Mike Elkins Ministry of Justice Justice Statistics Analytical Services 7th Floor 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ Tel: 020 3334 2946

General enquiries about the statistical work of the Ministry of Justice can be e-mailed to: statistics.enquiries@justice.gsi.gov.uk

General information about the official statistics system of the United Kingdom is available from www.statistics.gov.uk.

© Crown copyright Produced by the Ministry of Justice

Alternative formats are available on request from statistics.enquiries@justice.gsi.gov.uk